Impeachment, a Bridge Too Far

Impeachment is being brought up by Republicans outraged over Barack Obama's usurpations of power and unilateral rewriting of laws. And Obama is taunting John Boehner and the GOP: "So sue me."

Democrats are talking impeachment to rally a lethargic base to come out and vote this fall to prevent Republicans from taking control of the Senate, and with it the power to convict an impeached president.

Still, Republicans should drop the talk of impeachment.

For the GOP would gain nothing and risk everything if the people began to take seriously their threats to do to Barack Obama what Newt Gingrich's House did to Bill Clinton.

The charges for which a president can be impeached and removed from office, are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

With Bill Clinton, the impeachers had a solid case of perjury.

With Richard Nixon, they had a preponderance of evidence that, at least for a time, he had sought to obstruct justice in the investigation of the Watergate break-in.

Article II of the impeachment of Richard Nixon was for misuse of the IRS in what turned out to be futile and failed attempts to have the agency harass political enemies by having them audited.

As yet there is no evidence Obama knew of the IRS plot to delay and deny tax exemptions to Tea Party groups, which would be an abuse of power and a trampling upon the constitutional rights of Tea Partiers, who were denied the equal protection of the laws.

The GOP response to the lost emails of Lois Lerner and crashed computers that went missing should be a drumbeat of demands for the appointment of an independent counsel, not an impeachment committee in the House.

Obama claims he did not learn of the IRS abuse until years after it began, and weeks after his White House staff learned of it.

In the absence of those emails, the claim cannot be refuted.

In the Benghazi scandal, the president's defense is the same.

He had no idea what was going on. And cluelessness appears here to be a credible defense. Two weeks after the Benghazi atrocity, Obama was at the U.N. still parroting the Susan Rice line about an anti-Muslim video having been the cause of it all.

Has the president unilaterally rewritten the Obamacare law, while ignoring the Congress that wrote it? Indeed, he has.

But would a Republican Party that failed and folded when it tried to use its legitimate power of the purse to defund Obamacare really stand firm in an Antietam battle to impeach a president of the United States?

Or is this just "beer talk"?

Impeachment is in the last analysis a political act.

The impeachment of Nixon was a coup d'etat by liberal enemies who, though repudiated and routed by the electorate in 1972, still retained the institutional power to break him and destroy his presidency.

And, undeniably, he gave them the tools.

In the case of Nixon, political enemies controlled both houses of the Congress.

Washington was a hostile city. Though he had swept 49 states, Nixon lost D.C. 3-to-1. The bureaucracy built up in the New Deal and Great Society was deep-dyed Democratic.

Most crucially, the Big Media whose liberal bias had been exposed by Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew were hell-bent on revenge.

All three power centers — the bureaucracy, Congress, the Big Media — worked in harness to bring Nixon down.

No such powerful and hostile coalition exits today with Obama.

In 2008, Obama carried D.C. 24-to-1 over John McCain. The While House Correspondents Association has at times behaved like an Obama super PAC. Liberal Democrats dominate the bureaucracy and control the Senate.

Any Republican attempt at impeachment would go up against a stacked deck. And the GOP would be throwing away a winning hand for a losing one.

For while the American people have shown no interest in impeaching Obama, they are coming to believe they elected an incompetent executive and compulsive speechmaker who does not know what the presidency requires and who equates talk with action.

With the economy shrinking 3 percent in the first quarter, with Obama sinking in public approval, and with the IRS, NSA and VA scandals bubbling, why would Republicans change the subject to impeachment?

The effect would be to enrage and energize the Democratic base, bring out the African-American vote in force and cause the major media to charge the GOP with a racist scheme to discredit and destroy our first black president.

Does the GOP really want a fight on that turf, when they currently hold the high ground? If you are winning an argument, why change the subject?

If the nation is led to believe Republicans seek to gain the Senate so they can remove Barack Obama from office after a GOP-led impeachment, then Republicans are not likely to win the Senate.

Comments

According to Pat, party politics should over-rule all sworn oaths of House-members to "support and defend" the US Constitution. Any Congress-member that allows the President to make, change, or ignore laws is just as guilty as the President of violating his oath. Apparently, Pat believes Congress-members do not need to keep their word unless politics plays to their advantage. This ideology puts bad ethics on equal standing between both Democrats and Republicans leaving no choice for citizens to vote for a person of honor, character, and integrity. Pat has turned what is clearly a Constitutional "right and wrong" issue into a political game played by both sides. Why would he stoop to that same level?

Re: Jerry Hout
The essence is that impeachment is the political solution provided to the Legislative branch when the Executive has run amok. It requires the PEOPLE working through the PEOPLE's house to do this. We ain't there yet and a partisan divide won't get us there.

Don't impeach him. Don't harm him. Don't martyr him. Let him continue to fail on his own. He's doing admirably. He does not need our help as he's sucked farther and farther down into the muck he's creating for himself...

Pat Buchanan does NOT "believe Congress-members do not need to keep their word unless politics plays to their advantage." He is simply dealing with the way things are -- that an unfortunate majority of Congress-members in fact play by the existing play book, in which politics comes before principle, or country.

Mr. Hout, do not confuse dealing with what is, with believing that what is, is what Pat Buchanan wants. Accurately dealing with what is, is NOT the same as believing that's the way it ought to be. You should know better.

Perfect article because it is spot on correct. The attempt to impeach and convict Clinton hurt the Republican party. More of us should have learned something from that.

Instead, encourage the border state governors to file lawsuits against the Federal Government for not protecting our borders from invasion. Encourage the victims and families of victims of crimes perpetrated on them by illegal aliens to also sue the Federal Government for "wrongful losses" and "wrongful deaths" because of the Feds negligence of their U.S. Constitutional duty to protect our borders from invasion.

Why impeach? He is failing on his own and he has done more to bring independents to the right than at any time in recent history. If Congress wants to impeach, they should at least wait until after the mid-term elections.

Running to impeach now is equivalent the leftist mentality of 'do it because it feels good' - regardless of the consequences.

Re: DennisinWV
Impeachment is easy. The HOUSE is owned by the Republicans now, as it was under Newt. The difference today is that in the impeachment of Clinton (which by the way Clinton WAS impeached), Bob Dole sold enough Republicans to NOT convict him. Republican against Republican. Today, the Senate will not convict - even if Oreo were Satan.

Impeachment would legitimize the fraudulent usurper! It would be better to use treason or other criminal charges. They'd be more likely to stick. Oreo has challenged the Republicans to "sue" him. Do it. Take him to court for the crimes we KNOW he has committed - the most egregious of which he does over and over again: ignores his duty to "faithfully execute" the laws that control borders and sovereignty, and Article 1 Section 10 combined with Article 4 Section 4 and the Second Amendment SHOULD give the states free reign to close the borders AND arrest the sob for "aiding and abetting" BOTH "enemies foreign and domestic" [invaders to the south, Federal bureaucracies everywhere else - BLM, EPA, IRS, DHS, ACOE, etc ad nauseum].

I don't read that at all. It's a strategy. With Barack being the first black (multi-racial) President of the United States the Democrats have a vested interest in seeing him through his 8-years. Not being cut short because of being the first convicted President of an Impeachment trial. Mid-Term elections generally do not bring out the Democratic voters. They in fact are very lethargic If you hold off until just after the November elections, and if Republicans control Congress, then, you can proceed with a trial and remove the man from the office. In no way do I read in the article do I see him trying to say, ignore the President's lawlessness. Bob

I believe Pat is living in a dream world. The time has long past for anything the Republicans do except to be deemed racist and liars. The deck is stacked against any rational compromises the Right can offer. We are now living in a time of "payback". The PC crowd has the leverage currently to hoodwink the country into thinking they are the only ones who are correct in all matters. To the Left and their slavish Media, anything the Right does is mean and cruel. To the Left, they care not about balancing a budget or repaying our national debts. To them, it's free money. They can keep spending without end, and nothing else matters as long as they get their wish of redistributing wealth to their dependents who are getting the freebies. So, Pat, you are lost in the clouds. This game of power, even if the Republicans win the Senate, is over until the nation gets rid of a President who could care less about the Constitution. The tragedy is that we Americans have brought it upon ourselves by cluelessly voting in these extremists from both sides. Never has the nation been so much in debt, so much divided, and in essence rationally leaderless. One more thing, if the Left doesn't get its way, standby for the riots. I am glad I'm short for this world & won't have to put up with the "payback." I forecast in the near future blood will be spilt on both sides & no one will have won anything. Nature 101.

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment. The trial is the big deal and it takes 67 Senate votes to convict. For Clinton's trial their were 55 Republican Senators. Not enough. There is no difference today.

Impeachment would be a serious waste of political capital. And, stupid, too.

A better approach is to take control of the Senate while keeping the House. Then the Republicans can pass Republican-friendly bills on immigraiton, healthcare, welfare and the like. If Obama vetoes the immigration bill, for example, it will be him and the Progressives on the Hot Seat instead of the Republicans this time.

Obama is a lame duck president. It is time America put it's house back in order.

Nope, don't agree. The best way to move the Republicans into Hispanic voting favor is to put Obama in a position where he either signs a Republican-friendly immigration bill or vetoes the potential for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal aliens.

Look. The illegals have been waiting for 28 years. Any Republican-friendly immigration bill that contains a 5-year or 10-year tie to proof of border security verification prior to the start of a "pathway to citizenship" journey will be reluctantly accepted by illegals. If Obama vetoes it will set back the Progressives.

Pat rarely screws up on political matters and I believe he's absolutely right on this one.
Going down in history as a martyr would suit Obama just fine.
It would allow liberal historians (aren't they all ? ) to dismiss his total incompetence in handling the job and showing Americans that "color" had very little to do with the deserved criticism he received.
There's less than 2 1/2 years left in his term and hopefully the 2014 election will doom any more "social" programs that he may dream up.

Re: Bob Marzahn. Why is it necessary that we always should "hold off"? Hold off until the mid-terms, hold off to the general election, let them fail on their own, we've got to give the electorate time to get over Nixon, we can't be too harsh, we have act quickly and agree with them, we have to move slowly to disagree with them, and on and on. We've been holding off for 50 years and look where we are. A good portion of the Republican caucus are progressives working right along side the rogressives to kill off Conservative Tea Party candidates. Is it cowardice on your part urging us to wait or are you a closet progressive like many republican senators ie Corker and Alexander.

For god's sake Pat stop playing politics. The Republic is gone and this Trojan Horse -- Satan's agent is coming for the People. If ever there were a POS(TUS) that needed to be arrested it is Barry Soetoro or who ever and where ever he came from! We must restore the de jure Republic now.

ALL comments, even Mr. Buchanans', seem to be rooted in emotion. His statements seem to be logical, but when faced in trial, all bets are off, due to proof, or lack of. Until there is a built case, w/ physical proof, and substanciated (sp?) I believe that the effort would NOT be a waste of time, or effort. I do not know what proof is out there for or against impeachment, BUT if no effort is given, the 'opposition party' will remain the 'opossum party' and just roll up in a ball to get away from any fallout. They have a golden opportunity to build a solid case against this Imperical President, and if they choose not to take it, the Tea Party will surely begin to rattle pen/paper and votes to get rid of ( finally ) the Progressive Right, which I'm afraid is in the majority now. DO IT!

Patrick, a possibly symptomatic person occupying the White House is ipso facto a bridge too far. We have a man with all the symptoms and you conflate his behavior with a run-of-the mill US President executing acts of politics-as-usual. This narcissistic ideologue is obviously attempting to usurp order on a national scale and you equate it with other episodic impeachments you have known. He is intentionally making the country vulnerable on multiple levels, most recently with the Cloward-Piven ( students of diagnosed psychopath Saul Alinsky) manufactured crisis currently in play at the border, with the intent of creating an international (ie call in the UN, so our weapons will be confiscated) event. You think I'm crazy ? Your erstwhile definition of impeachment, to wit: 'treason, high crimes and misdemeanors' seems appropriate here. Americans calling for common sense concerning this are represented by Murrieta, CA and Wasilla, Alaska - not D.C.. Attempts to deal rationally with this possibly unbalanced person have proven, to date, futile. What does that tell us, Patrick J. ? We must cease to expect the best from this Chicago street thug (Clinton's words ) and, if the Legislative and Judicial branches fail to address it, as have already proven to be the case, the people must demand procedures begin. Such will cross, I predict, party lines. I have observed you over the years and note that you love the sound of your own voice. Unfortunately D.C. is an echo chamber, Pat. Time to forget about the cocktail parties, the sound of your own voice and deal with reality. Impeachment is not merely a 'political act'. This is not merely a Republican issue.

Re: e. cortese I agree. If we impeach Obama, we would have Biden as our president and he could run in 2016 and possibly win as an incumbent. No, Obama is doing very well destroying his presidency without our help.

Alas, Mr. Obama should not be impeached because it would simply unite the Democrats, media, Hollywood, and academia in his support and there is no way the Senate, even if the GOP wins control in 2014, will convict him. He would survive impeachment just as Mr. Clinton did, and emerge stronger . President Nixon was doomed because the GOP rejected his malfeasance. I do not think the Left will reject Mr. Obama's. Instead. focus on fighting him in the trenches by cutting his funding, blocking his appointees, forming joint committees to root out the criminals who infest the government, and forcing him to veto sound budgets and legislation. He needs to be confronted and stopped, not impeached

What do you mean that the American people have no interest in impeachment? I suggest you ask them. The American people are ANGRY at whats going on not only with this administration but on both sides of the aisle. The Constitution says impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Misdemeanor means petty crimes. In other words, if the "people" want to change their minds and vote a person out then they don't need felony - a petty crime will do. That's the beauty of the Constitution. Let the House file and you'll see support all across the nation.

Buchanan is a coward and he is comparing apples and oranges. This is not the same scenario as 1998. This is not about a president with questionable social morals. This is about a president who has openly defied the Constitution and has proclaimed he will continue to do so until Congress gives him what he wants. This is not about a president who shows women his privates, this is about the president brazenly declaring the Constitution and the other 2 branches of government to be subordinate to him and his will. This cannot be allowed to continue. Even if the Senate will not actually impeach him, you must try. He has backed the Congress into a corner and has left them no choice. Stop trying to control what the people think. Do what is right and then let the people decide if they agree. If they choose to allow an imperial president, then so be it.

2014 is a midterm election year. The average midterm election, according to Wikipedia, results in a 31-seat loss in the House and 4-seat loss in the Senate - for the President's party. One exception to this is the 1998 midterm when Republicans lost five seats in the House and Newt Gingrich was sent packing. That was also the year that Clinton was impeached. Fortunately for Republicans, most of them in Congress are well aware of this. The rank-and-file needs to shut up.

And, BTW, Congress - not the President - has the power to tax, spend, borrow and regulate. The President controls foreign policy - and Bush's war caused Republicans to lose the House in 2006. Obama's ineptitude helped them retake it in 2010.

A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice.

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a
common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

Our founders were well versed in the term stemming from their English Heritage. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown.

Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to
the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not.

The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

What oath does our President swear? “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It is time the president is held accountable for his actions under the Constitution.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Art 2 Sec 4 US Constitution

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."

James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

You have a laundry list of events which show the President is failing to "faithfully execute his office" and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. His executive orders can be taken in direct violation of the Constitution on many actions.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons.

It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in to "lay them at the feet" of the president.

It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or theirheirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors.

It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

It doesn't have to be a major crime.

He doesn't have to be guilty.

He simply has to have violated the public trust.

What are some grounds you say idicate his incapacity, negligence, perfidy or neglect? Many of these are taken from nine different State Attorney General reports/cases against the federal government. If one of them bothers you it is sufficient grounds.

2.In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.

3.President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example . . .

-The current crisis, refusing to return immigrants to their homes of record and jeopardizing citizens and shipping illegal immigrants throughout the US in various forms of health and criminiality with the expectation that the states will uphold the cost for their illegal action.
&#9702;More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
&#9702;Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.

4.Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that "at least two layers of reinforced fencing" be built along America's 650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration.

5.Obama's unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Especially egregious is President Obama's Executive Orders amending the ObamaCare law to allow doctors and hospitals to investigate which patients own a gun. This outrageous Executive Order could allow the federal government to track and monitor law-abiding gun owners simply because they sought medical care.

6.Obama's assault on Christians and religious freedom.

Obama's Health and Human Services Department has, on its own (without Congressional approval), issued a mandate that all health insurance plans must include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. As a result, pro-life employers and taxpayers are now effectively required by law to pay for abortions.

This mandate is an unconstitutional attack on the protections for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This mandate also directly violates the ObamaCare law enacted by Congress, which prohibits any and all taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions.

7.Obama forced ObamaCare on an unwilling public through bribery and lying about its cost.

Obama managed to secure passage of ObamaCare by one vote in the Senate by bribing senators. He bribed Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with the notorious "Cornhusker Kickback." He bribed Senator Mary Landrieu with the infamous $300 Million "Louisiana Purchase."

In addition, Obama knowingly and blatantly lied to America and to Congress about how much ObamaCare would really cost. The cost of ObamaCare to the American people over the next 10 years will not be less than $1 TRILLION, as Obama promised in his nationally televised speech to the nation. Instead, the real cost of ObamaCare to the Federal Treasury is $2.4 TRILLION, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

But the true cost of ObamaCare is more like $10 TRILLION when you factor in the cost to the states, the cost to individual Americans who are now required to purchase Obama-approved health plans (the "Individual Mandate"), the cost of exploding health insurance premiums, the $716 billion ObamaCare steals from Medicare, and the increased cost to
businesses of complying with ObamaCare mandates.

automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the death of at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress and the public, claiming he didn't know about his Justice Department's Fast & Furious operation.

Congress has now held Holder in contempt for defying congressional subpoenas and refusing to turn over thousands of Justice Department documents on Fast & Furious. President Obama asserted Executive Privilege to try to protect Holder.

But for Executive Privilege to apply, Obama would have had to have known about Fast & Furious, making the President as culpable as Holder.

Investigators suspect that Fast & Furious was an effort by the Obama Administration to discredit lawful gun ownership in America by purposefully creating gun crimes, thus inducing public outcry for gun control. When it put thousands of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the Obama Justice Department knew these guns would be used to commit crimes, perhaps even kill some Americans. Then Obama could say: "See how dangerous these guns are. We must ban them."

9."Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulated the Internet despite a court order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet."

10."Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Imposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rules on the state of Texas at the last minute and without an opportunity for Texas to respond to the proposed regulation. EPA overreach was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from Texas affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas."

11."Department of Justice (DOJ): Rejected state voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures."

12."DOJ: In violation of 10th Amendment, sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders. Arizona has a large number of illegal immigrants, compared to other states, and needs to be able to act to reduce the number."

13."DOJ: Went to court to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration reform laws, which require collection of the immigration status of public school students, require businesses to use E-Verify, and prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits."

14."White House: Made "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Congress was NOT in recess. The Obama Administration has ignored the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the appointments are unconstitutional."

15."Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Interfered with a Michigan church's selection of its own ministers by trying to force the church to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church."

16."Department of Energy (DOE): In 2009, the Obama Administration arbitrarily broke federal law, violated various contracts, and derailed the most studied energy project in American history at Yucca Mountain by denying it a license, thus costing the American people more than $31 billion."

17.Department of the Interior (DOI): Forced Glendale, a family-oriented town in Arizona, to become another Las Vegas against its will by granting "reservation status" to a 54-acre plot in the town, where the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation plans to build a resort and casino."

18.Without Congressional approval, Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

19.In the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, Obama illegally shortchanged bond holders in favor of Labor Unions, despite U.S. bankruptcy laws that specify that bond holders be first in line to be paid back.

20.Eager to use the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain, Obama exposed the identity and method of operation of the Navy SEALs team that conducted the operation in Pakistan, thus exposing its members to a lifetime of risk because they have been targeted for assassination by Islamists. A short time after Obama exposed the Navy SEALs' method
of operation, 22 SEALs were shot down and killed in Afghanistan. It is a violation of law for the President or any American to reveal classified military secrets.

21.President Obama established an extra-constitutional top secret "kill list" of people (including Americans) who can be summarily killed on sight – presumably by drones -- without due process. Once on Obama's kill list, an American citizen can be targeted and executed on the opinion of a single government bureaucrat. That's not how our legal system is supposed to work.

22.Obama Administration officials twisted the arms of defense contractors to not issue layoff notices in October of 2012 so as to avoid causing bad news for Obama right before the election — even though federal law (the "WARN Act") requires such notices. ; Not only is this a violation of the WARN Act, it's also an unlawful use of federal officials for campaign purposes.

23.President Obama intervened militarily in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act.

24.Obama knowingly lied to Congress and the American people about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his representatives repeatedly said an anti-Islamic video sparked a spontaneous uprising in Libya that resulted in the killings even though Obama knew that the attack was a
well-planned military-style assault by al Qaeda on the anniversary of September 11.

25.Michelle Obama's family trip to Africa in June of 2011, including a private safari at a South African game reserve, cost American taxpayers $424,000 for air travel alone. Mrs. Obama brought along both her makeup artist and hairstylist, as well as her mother, a niece and nephew, and her daughters, who were listed as "senior staff members."

We need to take back control of our country. This crap all started in the 60's when we took the "Whites Only" sign's down. It has been a snowball ride to hell ever since!!!
Wake up white people!!! We need to take our country back!!!

Re: e. cortese
Trouble with that theory is that if Obama has two more years, imagine the damage not done already that he would have a chance to do. I do not know what the answer is but SOMETHING does have to be done. I personally do not think any of the politicos in D.C. have the balls to really do anything but give lip service. I believe this country is doomed and there is really nothing we can do. Too many lib/progressive types entrenched in the power positions and they do not have the stomach for a fight.
So sad.

Re: James C. "Trouble with that theory is that if Obama has two more years, imagine the damage not done already that he would have a chance to do. I do not know what the answer is but SOMETHING does have to be done."

DITTO - The Republicans are complicit in an invasion of this country, an ongoing invasion happening on own soil. There will be no 2016 elections if the Republicans choose to shoot for their wet-dream 2016 elections.

Re: mijoeca "What do you mean that the American people have no interest in impeachment? I suggest you ask them. The American people are ANGRY"

Right On! 87% Support Impeachment Now or Later, 72% support it NOW - See poll on DrudgeReport.com. We are being invaded by a foreign country, Obama will not let media see who is coming in for all we know he is training the traitors "dreamers" who will fire on Americans.

Come on down to Arizona and see how the Ninth Circuit makes Arizona law meaningless.

What no one is realizing is that there is no political solution to this problem. They've all backed themselves into a corner in DC and they can't do anything to 0bama without hurting themselves somehow. When people realize the only thing anyone in DC is concerned about is themselves, maybe, just maybe we'll wake the hell up. In their minds, we should just all settle down and let 0bama destroy this country.

Mr. Buchanan,
This makes Watergate seem like nothing. Please think about your Country and what it will take to correct.
Thia president has spent more than all of the Presidents combined and created a divide that has destroyed the reason Government even exists. After reviewing the long list of charges. Please be honest for once..... -=Cy

**I meet you all the time. You hate Obama. You hate gay people. You hate black people, immigrants, Muslims, labor unions, women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies, you hate em all. You hate being called racist. You hate being called a bigot. Maybe if you talked about creating jobs more than you talk about why you hate gay people we wouldn't call you bigots. Maybe if you talked about black people without automatically assuming they are on food stamps while demanding their birth certificates we wouldn't call you racist. You hate socialism and social justice. You hate regulations and taxes and spending and the Government. You hate.

You like war. You like torture. You like Jesus. I don't know how in the hell any of that is compatible, but no one ever accused you haters of being over-committed to ideological consistency. You like people who look like you or at least hate most of the things that you hate. You hate everything else.

Now, I know you profess to love our country and the founding fathers (unless you are reminded that they believed in the separation of church and state), but I need to remind you that America is NOT what Fox News says it is. America is a melting pot, it always has been. We are a multi-cultural amalgamation of all kinds of people, and yet you still demonize everyone who is not a rich, white, heterosexual christian male or his submissive and obedient wife.

You hate liberals, moderates, hell, anyone who disagrees with Conservative dogma as espoused by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. You hate em.

Well, here are the facts, Jack. If you hate the Government then you are unqualified to manage it. If you hate gay people more than you love America than you should take your own advice and get the hell out. There are several countries that are openly hostile to gay people, but they are full of brown people and you don't like them much either from what I understand. It looks like you are screwed, but that's not what I am here to tell you.**

jdp...He has done so many thins worthy of impeachment releasing 5 of the most bad people help as world prisoners
IRS scandal...fast n ferrous ....canceling the national day of prayer. saying America is mostly a Muslim nation.
If he not the actual doer of these events he did nothing to stop them from happening spending our nation away.
has not shown a valid birth cert still uses an illegal social security number from Connecticut. So he is complicit in all these things. why you if you had done just one of the things would be in jail by now; not allowed to run a mock leading America down the tubes, 3 economically, financially, Medically, lied to the people of the USA.
SO HOW CAN YOU JUST STAND AND SAY WAIT A MOMENT? CLINTON LIES AND WAS IMPEACHED OB IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW HERE.

Just because Obama has all this political clout is grounds to not impeach him? Hello, that's the problem. How else do you rout a tyrant? Of course you have to play against a stacked deck and against the very loud and vociferous high pitched squeals of his Obama-mania teeny bopper cheering squad. Of course you may not succeed, and of course it would be a very unpopular row to hoe. But the path of righteousness for America is never really a popular way to go (in the beginning) and the people are so blinded by this man's dazzling glitz that they'll accept anything and everything he is shoving down our throats! Of course Hitler had the same celebrity in his beginning too, as he and his legion of demonically fueled fascists slowly but surely chipped away at the freedoms and liberties of most of Europe and singled out a race for extermination. We have no choice but to impeach Barack Hussein Obama for the destruction of the United States Constiitution, and abuse of the three legged power structure of America. We can't afford to wait any longer, every day that goes by sees him solidifying his absolute reign over the new prison that used to be called America. Just do it.

Obama should be physically seized and incarcerated by the military until an unbiased *civilian* trial can be held. What charges you ask? I would say "Take your pick, starting with murder". The charges list could cover pages.

And after the current occupant of the White House is dealt with, it's time to go after Bush Jr. & Company. And yes; I am serious. This political trash has set this country up to fail, it's only right they should reap what they've sown.

For those who recommend first win the Senate and then pass laws to correct the perceived ills caused by the current administration, I submit this is flawed logic. Even if new laws pass and are veto proof by a president, the current President has shown he will not enforce the laws. The only way to change things is to indict (impeach) the President, have a trial, and remove him from office. I don't claim it will be easy - or not messy. However, under the current administration, that's the only way to effect change.

Sadly, Buchanan is correct. Impeachment would change the argument. If successful, Biden would result.
I see Obama as just another Chicago politician jail bird. The Leftists would advertise him to their base as a persecuted black hero.

Even after we win the Senate, we'll have two more years to count the damage this president will do.

You CANNOT try and convict a person who impersonates a medical doctor for the crime of medical malpractice if that person illegally treats and injures a patient!! That person can ONLY be tried for the crime of IMPERSONATION and the injuries resulting there from!! Likewise, a person who is NOT Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of POTUS...CANNOT BE IMPEACHED...as ONLY a Constitutionally eligible "President" can be impeached!! That person can ONLY be tried for IMPERSONATION/USURPATION and associated crimes of felony fraud, forgery, perjury and misprision of identity committed to facilitate the crime of IMPERSONATION/USURPATION!!!
It does not matter the effort exerted to ignore, deny, self-deceive and cover-up the reality and truth to accommodate the strangling constraints of political correctness, or paralyzing fear of being called racist, or terrifying fear of negroes rioting! The most politically significant, socially momentous event ever to occur in the history of this country, the election of the so-called "First 'Black President", and yet not one hospital ANYWHERE in the 50 States will acknowledge his birth there or his mother as a maternity patient there!! NOT ONE!! Not one hospital anywhere has even a wallet-sized picture of him hanging on a wall with the caption "Born Here"!!!
Multiple proven forged computer-generated birth certificates, use of multiple aliases, stolen SS#,sealed school records, sealed/lost passport travel records which indicate citizenship prior to 2008 - particularly travel from Indonesia to the U.S. as a child and travel to Pakistan as an adult when Pakistan was on the U.S. State Dept.'s No-Travel list, and the FACT that according to the Walter-McCarran Act of 1952 his U.S. citizen mother, being married to a (Kenyan) foreign national, was TOO YOUNG at the time of his birth to confer her citizen status to him....all notwithstanding...there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY either Mr. Buchannan or his media cohorts can CONSTITUTIONALLY justify and legitimize a person having had Kenyan citizenship-by-birth AND Indonesian citizenship-by-adoption can be legally eligible to occupy that Oval Office in the WH!! Arrested for criminal impersonation and usurpation of a Federal Office, tried, convicted and frog-hopped in an orange jump suit directly into GITMO for the next 50 years....YES!!! Impeached as "president""...NO!!!!! Unfortunately, Buchannan and his cowardly book-selling ilk are content to sell books, live the lie, and perpetuate the deception, thus continuing to justify and enable the liar, becoming participants with this muslim marxist homosexual illegal-alien in the destruction of this once great nation.

Pat, you are a tired old F U C K I N G P U S S Y. You're content to keep watching the country auger in due to a marxist maggot in the White House while you just 'talk' about how tragic it is. You are a worthless prick.

Mr. BHObama has destroyed his own credibility. Mr. BHObama has repeatedly set up false "crises", then clamored about a necessary rush to "fix" them. The strategy is plain to anyone who has the will to face the truth: Mr. BHObama says ANYTHING to get what Mr. BHObama wants politically and Mr. BHObama claims unprovable "unawareness" as his super-duper fingerprint remover. The ongoing illegal alien invasion from Central America is only the latest "crisis". Mr. BHObama with his pro-illegal "immigration" speeches once again precipitated a "crisis" in order to get what Mr. BHObama wants politically. It could be more effective than impeachment, to simply consistently remind Americans of the lies, the false "crises", the failure to execute the job of chief executive - i.e., enforcing laws, the rush to pass government-expanding policies, the rush to pass liberty-shrinking policies, the rush to pass policies that produce higher costs to Americans: healthcare insurance, energy use, everyday staples of living, etc. A Senate majority in the 2014 election may slow the progression of Mr. BHObama's policies. A 2016 Republican chief executive may stop the progression of Mr. BHObama's policies. Then, only holding Republicans to conservative principles may allow repair of the damage caused by Mr. BHObama's policies.

Re: Jerry Hout
No, I think that he (Pat) was saying that impeachment is not a winnable fight. There needs to be a strategy to win a fight, and, as he pointed out in his Republican response to Obamacare (essentially a lot of Olympic-level whining), they (the Republican party), would never hold together in the face of a dogfight like that.

Pat is Correct - Why haven't House Republican leaders been crying every day for a Special Prosecutor. The IRA director stone-walled, so did DOJ's Holder, Lois Lerner took the Fifth! Pleeeese --- this administration is ducking every thing! House Committees are fine, but a Special Prosecutor will be objective and seek out the facts, and evidence.

impeach the brainless all American voters for selling the country out...he was elected two times he supports all the right causes anti white pro infanticide pro sodomy--gay marriage all the gods of our run at the mouth porno drug addicted society..

One of the grounds for impeachment, "high crimes and dismeanors," includes the abuse of power. For a President, that includes a failure to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Obama has done that repeatedly. He has also violated the Constitution's separation of powers by effectively changing legislation passed by Congress, thereby violating his oath of office. The grounds for impeachment therefore exist. Nothwithstanding the foregoing, I think Buchanan is correct. Impeachment is a political solution. The political will does not exist for impeachment. Obama is destroying himself (and his fellow Dems) politically quite well on his own.

It is what it is, and Pat laid it out quite accurately. Sometimes "right" needs to be tempered by what is practical: "of or concerned with the actual doing of something rather than with theory or ideas". While I would love to remove this wart from the a$$ of America, most of all I want the Republic to survive. When we do get control back, I surely wish that Congress would tighten up laws regarding presidential orders, etc., and PUT SOME TEETH IN THE LAWS!!! There are other ways to handle Obama IF the Republicans would grow a set and do it. But, I agree, impeachment proceedings would be the last nail in the coffin or the GOP.

So lets impeach him for being the worst president. Are we ok with him learning what his government is doing by watching tv? how much Tv does he watch anyway? I see him traveling all over the world, and now he watches Tv? Does any work get done? No wonder he has no idea how his government runs.

Yes Obama should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. They are numerous. Please see the book: Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack From Office. Any one who has researched Obama's family history knows that he has spent millions of dollars for lawyers to hide his past family history is a fact. Obama is an illegitimate illegal alien this is a fact. Obama's Fathers and mother are interesting to say the least. His legal father Barack Hussein Obama was a student in Hawaii and had two children in Kenya, and Obama's biological father Frank Marshall Davis had 5 children when he got Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother pregnant. Ann was 18 years old an Frank Marshall Davis was 55 years old when he got Ann pregnant in Hawaii at his home. Obama was born 4 months before Ann reached her 19th birthday in Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa Kenya August 4, 1961. Please see: 'Dreams From My Real Father' by Joel Gilbert. Available at Amazon.com